UFCThe Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) is a U.S.-based mixed martial arts organization, recognized as the largest MMA promotion in the world. The UFC is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada and is owned and operated by Zuffa, LLC. This promotion is responsible for solidifying the sport's postion in the history-books.
UFC is currently undergoing a remarkable surge in popularity, along with greater mainstream media coverage. UFC programming can now be seen on FOX, FX, and FUEL TV in the United States, as well as in 35 other countries worldwide.

This is more for anyone who watches A LOT of ufc fights.
There are certain fights where the results freak me out. For example, my jaw dropped when i seen that Couture was awarded the win over Vera. I guess that's the main reason why i dont do any sports gambling.
Anyways, are there ever major fights (in the UFC specifically) when a decision win is awarded to the underdog when it seemed like the fight was super close? Hopefully you guys will discuss fights that happened in the last 6-7 years.

I do believe that the betting odds (big favorite vs big underdog) and fighters status (champ vs challenger, contender vs gatekeeper) have somewhat of an influence over the judges scorecards. There are SO MANY examples to back up this point (especially lately).

You may find the exception to the rule (Rampage vs Forrest?) but most of the time, that's what I'm seeing tbqh.

Repped

Ps: you dont just see it in the UFC but in most if not all MMA orgs. Pride was far worse with the biased reffing and judging imo.

so for rampage vs forest, rampage was considered the underdog by ODDS MAKERS?? I am not talking about "champ vs challenger" so much as odds makers decision. For example, odds makers still had machida as the favorite and evans as their underdog, so if their fight went to a decision (and for arugments sake lets say it was a close match), would the judges favor machida or evans or would there not be any favoritism. I guess a crap example would be vanderlei vs lidell. Anyone (besides helen keller and others in her circumstanses)knows that lidell didn't win ALL three rounds. However one judge gave him all three rounds. Keep in mind lidell was the favorite by odds makers.

so for rampage vs forest, rampage was considered the underdog by ODDS MAKERS?? I am not talking about "champ vs challenger" so much as odds makers decision.

Alright I see.

For the Rampage vs Forrest example I was rather talking from a champ vs challenger's pov. But Rampage was ALSO a very big betting favorite so the point still remains that that fight in particular could be viewed as 'an exception to the rule'.

Quote:

For example, odds makers still had machida as the favorite and evans as their underdog, so if their fight went to a decision (and for arugments sake lets say it was a close match), would the judges favor machida or evans or would there not be any favoritism.

Tbh I have no clue about this one. If I have to answer, Id say they would favor the champ Rashad (+ Machida wasn't that big of a favorite odds wise).

Quote:

I guess a crap example would be vanderlei vs lidell. Anyone (besides helen keller and others in her circumstanses)knows that lidell didn't win ALL three rounds. However one judge gave him all three rounds. Keep in mind lidell was the favorite by odds makers.

Just wondering, why are you only considering betting odds for your argument?

There are other factors that come into play imo and I listed some of them.

The way I see it, the household name or the champ is gifted the decision as soon as the fight it signed. The less established challenger needs to come out and seriously impress to even squeek out the decision. Look at Shogun/Machida. Clearly Shogun won the fight, but wasn't convincing. Or he couldn't force Machida to deviate from his gameplan. I don't really agree with your views on the Vera/Couture fight. To be honest, I don't really remember the fight at all, I just know I can't stand Vera so I automatically agree with anyone that has a win of him.

Not to turn this into another 'Shogun vs Machida' or 'Shogunz got robbed!!1' thread but I do believe Lyoto being the defending champion, heavy odds favorite and his hype coming into the fight got him the nod on the judges scorecards.

When youre the heavy underdog, challenger, gatekeeper or a nobody, you have to do a lot more than your opponent to get the decision from the judges. If the fight is very close and 'could go either way' well, very often you'll end up being on the wrong side of a decision

Edit: Randy vs Vera is the same case. If Vera was the one with the big name.. he'd have gotten the decision imo.

When you're the heavy underdog, challenger, gatekeeper or a nobody, you have to do a lot more than your opponent to get the decision from the judges. If the fight is very close and 'could go either way' well, very often you'll end up being on the wrong side of a decision

That's pretty much what I was saying when I say, "The big name is gifted a decision upon signing the fight."